Laserfiche WebLink
<br />streams. I'm not offended by the answer, but the answer can't always be, we need water in the <br />stream 24/7. The Western Slope must decide, what stream, when, for how long, in what volume, <br />and for what purpose. Someone will figure out how to make it happen. If the Western Slope can <br />answer these questions, the Eastern Slope will be responsive. Ifwe can do this there's probably <br />some common ground." <br /> <br />Grand County negotiations. Lurline Curran mentioned that Denver Water constantly refrains, <br />'Y ou can't interfere with our firm yield,' and asked if a coordinated stream management plan <br />between Northern and Denver Water could be adopted so they coordinate their withdrawals from <br />the Colorado and Fraser Rivers. Chips Barry responded, "Stream flows in Grand County is one <br />of the explosive issues we are talking about in the mediation. The issue (of coordinating <br />withdrawals with Northern) has barely been raised. Perhaps we can reach some agreement and <br />plug those solutions into the EIS (the Environmental Impact Statement that is being prepared as <br />part of the Moffat Tunnel firming process). Denver has to settle the issues on the table." <br /> <br />"If we can do that, perhaps we can bring in Northern. Northern is not a party to the mediation. I <br />object to people speaking of this process as a 'global settlement.' Not all parties are involved. <br />All we're talking about are very modest discussions between Denver and other parties. We've <br />owned water in Grand County for fifty years. Summit County won't give up very much. The <br />Wolcott pumpback is a bigger issue. If we can reach agreement on the explosive issues, perhaps <br />we can broaden it so it becomes globaL" <br /> <br />Don Carlsen, Northern, commented that "Just today (Monday, February 26,2007) Northern is <br />meeting for the first time with Denver Water to look into whether a coordinated stream <br />management plan (for withdrawals from the Colorado River in Grand County) could be <br />adopted. " <br /> <br />Wait until the non-consumptive needs assessment is completed. Chuck Ogilby commented, <br />"Without the non-consumptive needs assessment that the CBR T is charged with doing, how will <br />we know that there's enough water in storage and in river flow to meet the needs of the rivers? <br />How can you reach a global settlement beforehand? The river needs may not even be met with <br />existing water remaining on the Western Slope, much less additional withdrawals" Chips Barry <br />responded, "When the non-consumptive needs assessment is done, I won't put a great deal more <br />weight on the non-consumptive needs assessment than the Western Slope would put on Front <br />Range claims that it needs 75,000 more acre feet." <br /> <br />Denver Water's goals in the Colorado Basin Process process. Chips Bany commented, "The <br />goals of the Colorado Basin Process are certainty for the Blue River Decree, peace with the <br />Colorado River headwater counties, and resolution to the north end system firming project <br />(Moffat Tunnel). Get people together to reach agreement. The Blue River Decree was a <br />facilitated decision. There's no time table for the mediation. Resolution within a year will be <br />quick. " <br /> <br />Western slope goals. Rachel Richards, Pitkin County Commissioner, asked what the Western <br />Slope goals are, and Chips Bany responded, "Grand County wants a stream flow management <br />plan. Summit and Grand Counties have water supply issues, where a few hundred acre feet can <br />make a big difference. Summit County has water quantity issues, since Dillon Reservoir is the <br />heart and soul of its summer economy. Eagle County is concerned about big conditional water <br />rights upstream of Vail, as well as water quality issues (that arise when there is too little water in <br />the rivers)." <br /> <br />L\CWCB Imaging\Caleb\Minutes\Colorado\2007\Minutes Feb 2007 CBRTdoc <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />7/l< <br />